Latest news with #KenKendrick
Associated Press
7 hours ago
- Business
- Associated Press
Snake eyes: D-backs' $425 million investment in starting pitching hasn't gone as planned
PHOENIX (AP) — The normally budget-conscious Arizona Diamondbacks have been willing to spend big money over the past several years, taking chances on the notoriously volatile market of free agent starting pitching. So far, it's a bet that has come up snake eyes. Over the past 5 1/2 years, Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick has committed roughly $425 million to four pitchers — Corbin Burnes, Jordan Montgomery, Eduardo Rodríguez and Madison Bumgarner. The combined return on that investment: A 30-48 record, 5.25 ERA, minus-0.4 WAR and two Tommy John surgeries. Yikes. The latest bad news came on June 1 when Burnes — who signed a $210 million, six-year deal in January — abruptly left a game against the Nationals with right elbow pain. Now he's set to undergo Tommy John surgery and might not return to the mound until 2027. It's a brutal blow for the D-backs, who have a 31-34 record heading into Monday night's game against the Mariners. The 30-year-old Burnes seemed like the safest bet on the market last winter when the D-backs made the signing. The four-time All-Star and 2021 National League Cy Young Award winner had been remarkably consistent and healthy over the previous four seasons, making at least 28 starts every year. 'I might as well do another job if we're going to be scared of bringing in a guy of this caliber on your team,' Arizona's general manager Mike Hazen said at Burnes' introductory news conference. Added Kendrick: 'We're stretching the budget. It won't be the last time.' And for two months, he was everything Hazen, Kendrick and the D-backs hoped for with a 3-2 record and 2.66 ERA. Now he's out for the foreseeable future. It's the latest in a bad run of luck for Arizona's front office. It's also a brutal reminder of the substantial risk in handing out big money to pitchers in an era when injuries are happening at an alarming rate. The D-backs aren't the only team facing the same problem, even in their own division. The Los Angeles Dodgers currently have 14 pitchers on the injured list — including starters Blake Snell, Tyler Glasnow, Roki Sasaki and Tony Gonsolin. Snell has made just two starts this season because of injuries after signing a $182 millon, five-year deal in the offseason. The difference is the Dodgers seem to have nearly unlimited money to keep adding talent. The D-backs do not. The string of disappointing signings started in December 2019, when the D-backs added Bumgarner with a $85 million, five-year deal. The lefty had declined from his peak in the early-to-mid 2010s, when he led the San Francisco Giants to three World Series titles, but there was reason to believe he would be a solid middle-of-the-rotation option. Instead, he regressed even more in the desert, going 15-32 with a 5.23 ERA over a little more than three seasons. The D-backs released him in 2023 after he had a 10.26 ERA through four starts, eating more than $30 million in the process. The D-backs made a surprise run to the World Series that year and invested in a pair of pitchers — Montgomery and Rodriguez — during the ensuing offseason. Montgomery signed a $25 million, one-year deal with a vesting option for 2025. Rodriguez was added on an $80 million, four-year deal. Much like the Bumgarner signing, both seemed like good deals at the time. Montgomery had just helped the Rangers beat the Diamondbacks in the World Series and was a solid lefty with a sub-4.00 ERA in each of the previous three seasons. Rodriguez was coming off one of the best seasons of his career after going 13-9 with a 3.30 ERA for the Detroit Tigers. Things haven't worked out for either pitcher. Montgomery was awful in 2024 with a 6.23 ERA and eventually demoted to the bullpen. But because he made 21 starts, his vesting option for $22.5 million kicked in for 2025. His bid for a bounce-back season ended before it even started. The lefty got hurt during spring training in March and needed Tommy John surgery for the second time in his career, ending his time in the desert. Rodriguez hurt his shoulder during spring training in 2024 and didn't make his D-backs debut until August, contributing a 5.04 ERA as the team faded down the stretch and missed the playoffs. He's battled injuries and ineffectiveness again this year with a 6.70 ERA through 10 starts. There's still time for the Rodriguez and Burnes deals to take a turn for the better. Even if Burnes doesn't return until 2027, he'd have four more years remaining on his deal. D-backs manager Torey Lovullo chose to remain optimistic following Burnes' injury. 'We're all with Corbin right now,' Lovullo said. 'This is a tough day to get this news. But we'll find a way to rally around him, play hard for him all year long. ... It's a long road, and it takes time for him to heal and recover. And he will. He'll be great for the Arizona Diamondbacks, I'm convinced of it.' ___ AP MLB:
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers should consider these questions before giving a billionaire a stadium bailout
Photo viaPlus Behind closed doors, some of our state politicians are busy negotiating to force Arizona taxpayers to fork over up to $1 billion of our hard-earned taxes. This would redirect public resources to subsidize a lucrative private sports franchise and its billionaire owner — and that raises more questions than answers. Arizona Diamondbacks team owner Ken Kendrick is rich enough to build several stadiums without any taxpayer handout. The team is valued at $1.6 billion, having appreciated almost sevenfold since he bought it in 2004. As one economist says, 'The harsh reality for even the biggest sports fan is that arena subsidies are a terrible use of finite government resources and a ridiculously egregious redistribution of wealth from regular Americans to some of the wealthiest people and organizations on the planet.' These are simply not people and organizations that need taxpayer help. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The entire premise of this idea is that it only takes public tax resources from people who use the stadium. But that is simply false. With the stadium giveaway lawmakers are considering, the State of Arizona, Maricopa County and the City of Phoenix would all lose tax dollars that currently help pay for things like schools and public safety. State and local budgets are already strained due to the spiraling cost of Arizona's massive tax cuts and out-of-control universal vouchers. Faced with dwindling state-shared revenues, the City of Phoenix was recently forced to raise its sales tax to avoid cuts to police, fire and libraries. Combined Arizona state, county and city sales taxes are already among the highest in the country. Our burden ranks 11th nationwide, and it's rising. Arizona also ranks 8th lowest in the country for investment per capita, meaning our needs are vast. Finding extra public revenue to prop up the billionaire owner of a lucrative franchise means either allowing that vast list of needs to accumulate as Arizonans go without, or tapping into taxpayers' pockets in the form of tax increases. Evidence from a wide swath of economists shows that arena giveaways are a drain, not a boon. More than three decades of studies have found stadiums to be consistent money pits, unjustified as worthwhile public investments, because the promised financial benefits fail to materialize. Proponents argue that 'if the Diamondbacks are not playing at Chase Field, there is no revenue generated at all' — but this economic fallacy ignores the fact that most spending at a stadium is a substitute for other local recreational spending. We're simply shuffling the economic deck chairs by pulling commerce from elsewhere nearby. Our taxpayer dollars could be diverted to luxury amenities or to tax-exempt hotels, restaurants, bars and retail, with little hope of public benefit. Why should taxpayers subsidize luxury amenities and tax-exempt private pockets? How would proponents of a stadium giveaway ensure taxpayer accountability and prevent misuse of public resources? In 2017, just 19 years after taxpayers paid more than $250 million to help build the ballpark, team owner Ken Kendrick sued Maricopa County for refusing to pay $187 million for renovations. He eventually agreed to take proceeds from stadium maintenance and event bookings to pay for his desired upgrades, an agreement intended to protect taxpayers. That lawsuit settlement explicitly released the county from further financial obligation. Now, the team has come to the state Capitol with both hands out, asking for even more taxpayer money. Did the team's management fail to adequately budget for expected renovations, and if so, why should taxpayers step in to save them from their lack of financial planning? A frequently heard argument is that we have to pay up or the team will punish us by decamping for a more lucrative pasture. But where is that, exactly? With five million residents, Phoenix is the 10th largest metro area in the nation. All comparably sized markets in the United States already have their own teams. The team would have to relocate to Montreal or Mexico City to avoid downgrading. The current 30-team league also has two expansion teams shopping for a location, further complicating any move. Perhaps this is why, at a recent closed-door meeting, a team rep 'insinuated (threatened)' that Major League Baseball would pull spring training from Arizona — relocating the 15 teams that call the Cactus League their spring home — if lawmakers don't use tax money to pay for the stadium upgrades. There's a glaring potential conflict of interest here, too. Kendrick and his wife, Randy, are key political donors who spent nearly $1 million in 2024 to influence control of the Arizona Legislature, including funding independent expenditures to support Jeff Weninger (R-Chandler) and directly oppose his opponent. Just months after his win, Weninger sponsored the Diamondbacks' stadium funding bill and advanced it through the committee he chairs. This looks for all the world like 'pay to play,' which raises eyebrows — and serious ethical concerns. Stadium subsidies impose an invisible burden on taxpayers in the form of forgone public services like police and fire services, parks, schools, libraries, roads and public transit. The opportunity costs of these missed expenditures are critically important to our communities. Why hand that money over to a billionaire-owned pro sports team? Asking taxpayers whether we want to subsidize a multi-billion-dollar private corporation and its billionaire owner instead of forcing the giveaway down our throats behind closed doors would probably produce a decisive answer — and that's why the team and legislators don't want to go to the ballot. Voters across the nation have clearly shown they don't like stadium giveaways. In the last two years alone, voters have axed a Virginia subsidy amid fierce public opposition, vetoed a stadium handout in Kansas City, and decisively rejected a taxpayer-financed arena right here at home. Arizonans deserve good tax policy that benefits the entire state, not just the wealthy, and embraces the spirit of public benefit. We encourage Gov. Hobbs and state lawmakers to consider all the above questions before making a decision that will weigh on taxpayers for decades to come. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The stadium swindle: The $500M heist from taxpayers to give a handout to a billionaire
Photo viaPlus The Arizona State Legislature is considering a bill that would further subsidize the 27-year-old Chase Field, which taxpayers provided more than $250 million to help build in 1998, in order to support the Arizona Diamondbacks. But why should taxpayers be asked to foot the bill once again for a venue that is public in name only? Forbes estimates the Diamondbacks to be worth $1.6 billion — after being purchased for only $238 million in 2004 — and co-owner Ken Kendrick supposedly has a net worth of more than $1 billion. Now, the team wants $500 million from taxpayers to renovate the aging stadium. The idea that the stadium is a 'public asset' that deserves taxpayer dollars is ludicrous. The stadium supports a private business, which largely caters to a wealthy class of patrons. There is no economic justification for subsidizing the profits of a billionaire owner and his upper-crust clientele. This is a wealth transfer from general taxpayers, many of whom can't afford to go to a game, to the most well-to-do members of the community. Democrats and Republicans should be joining hands in opposition to this indefensible subsidy rather than making bipartisan toasts over cocktails in the owner's suite. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Five decades of economic studies have yet to identify a stadium that justifies subsidization. Researchers have found that stadiums are simply not economic-development catalysts, because they largely just reallocate how local residents spend their money. If citizens weren't spending it at the ballpark, they would be spending it at other local businesses. Estimates of non-fiscal social benefits also show that community members tend to place a low value on having a local sports team. Nothing comes close to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the bill's advocates are seeking. This research evidence is robust, with theoretical and empirical support, which is why it is the consensus view among scholars that stadiums are inadvisable public investments. The public doesn't like stadiums, either. A 2022 poll from researchers at Arizona State University found that the public is largely opposed to venue subsidies, with 56% opposing taxes to subsidize professional sports venues, and only 26% supporting higher taxes for this purpose. If legislators really think a renovated ballpark is something that the public values, then the proposal should be put directly to voters at the ballot box. The reason it is being pushed through the Legislature is because its chief advocates know that the public does not support it. And if they go forward with the plan, they should be aware that there will likely be electoral consequences. See former Wisconsin state Sen. George Petak and the late Cobb County Commissioner Tim Lee in Georgia, who both ended their political careers after supporting unpopular ballpark subsidies for the Milwaukee Brewers and Atlanta Braves, respectively. The funding mechanism being proposed to benefit the Diamondbacks relies upon what public finance economists call 'fiscal illusion.' The tax mechanism was selected to understate the public cost. By drawing funds from the district around the stadium, it gives the appearance of a use tax, being paid for only by customers. This is not correct. What it is doing is taking tax dollars that are scheduled to be allocated to other public purposes and instead redirecting them to underwrite this special-interest project. Even though the hundreds-of-millions of dollars figures being discussed would be collected from the geographic area, the revenue has the opportunity cost of funding other public projects or simply cutting taxes to put the money back in taxpayers' pockets. If the government is devoting public dollars to a stadium project, then the public must be out that same amount of money. You cannot pull this money out of thin air; otherwise, we would fund all public projects like this. It's important to remember: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE STADIUM. I urge the Arizona Legislature to give thoughtful consideration to this policy issue. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
